Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Kalawati Devi vs The Union Of India on 27 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5674 of 2025
Smt. Kalawati Devi, W/o Late Dipti Singh, R/o Dwarika Puri, Power
House, Road No. 3, Chutia, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India, through Chairman-cum-Chief Executive Officer,
New Delhi
2. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata (West
Bengal)
3. The Chief Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata
(West Bengal)
4. The Chief Commercial Manager (Catering & P.S.), South Eastern
Railway, Kolkata (West Bengal)
5. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi
Division, Ranchi (Jharkhand)
6. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway,
Ranchi Division, Ranchi (Jharkhand)
7. The Assistant Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi
Division, Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..... Respondents
With
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 11 of 2026
Smt. Kalawati Devi, W/o Late Dipti Singh, R/o Dwarika Puri, Power
House, Road No. 3, Chutia, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Satish Kumar, Chairman and C.E.O., Railway Board, Ministry of
Railway, Government of India, New Delhi
2. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, General Manager, South Eastern Railway,
Kolkata (West Bengal)
3. Mr. Arvind Singh, Chief Commercial Manager, S.E. Railway, Kolkata
(West Bengal)
4. Mr. Upendra Singh, Chief Commercial Manager (Catering & PS),
South Eastern Railway, Kolkata (West Bengal)
5. Mr. Arjun Mazumdar, Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (PS,
Catering or Spl), South Eastern Railway, Kolkata (West Bengal)
6. Mrs. Suchi Singh, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South
Eastern Railway, Ranchi Division, Ranchi
7. Mrs. Karuna Nidhi Singh, Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern
Railway, Ranchi
8. Mr. Anil Jerai, Assistant Commercial Manager, (FM & PS), South
Eastern Railway, Ranchi
9. Union of India
10. The State of Jharkhand
..... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
—–
1
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
For the Petitioner: Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate
[in both cases]
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
[in both cases]
-----
07/27.04.2026
W.P. (C) No. 5674 of 2025:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. With the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the
parties, this petition is heard finally.
3. The petitioner, who is 76 years old widow, seeks the quashing of
termination order dated 11.06.2025 of the license to operate a stall
on the railway platform at Ranchi Railway Station and for further
direction to renew her license in terms of Circular No. 35 of 2010
and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the
case of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager & Others vs.
S.C.R. Caterers reported in (2016) 3 SCC 582.
4. The record indicates that the petitioner’s husband was a licensee in
respect of the small food stall at the Ranchi Railway Station
platform since 1994. However, he expired in 2000. After that, the
license was issued/transferred to the petitioner being a widow of
the deceased licensee. This license was renewed from time to time
i.e., in 2002, 2007 and 2012 as per the applicable catering policies.
5. On 17.07.2015, however, the petitioner was directed to vacate the
food stall and pursuant to this letter, on 21.07.2015, the
petitioner’s stall and the petitioner were physically removed from
the platform.
6. The petitioner filed a petition before this Court which was disposed
of with a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation. Since
the petitioner’s representation was rejected on 12.06.2024, the
2
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
petitioner was forced to file yet another petition i.e., W.P. (C) No.
3905 of 2024.
7. In this petition, the order dated 12.06.2024 was set aside, and
directions were issued to the respondents to consider the
petitioner’s application for renewal of the license. Pursuant to this
Court’s order, the respondents renewed the petitioner’s license on
14.10.2024 for a period of three years with certain conditions,
including payment of the earlier dues.
8. Following this renewal, the petitioner was restored to the railway
platform, where she, assisted by her daughter, resumed her petty
business. However, such restoration was short-lived because, by
the impugned communication dated 11.06.2025, the renewed
license was terminated, invoking Article 15 of the Master License
Agreement.
9. It is this communication dated 11.06.2025 that the petitioner
challenges in this petition. The petitioner also seeks relief of further
renewal under the 2010 Policy, read with the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above.
10. Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that
the impugned termination communication dated 11.06.2025 is
ex facie, arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural
justice and unfair play. He pointed out that the allegations of failure
to provide satisfactory services or of non-adherence to the required
performance level were entirely vague, and, based on such
allegations, a widow could not have been ousted from the railway
platform. He submitted that such ouster is contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C.R.
Caterers (supra).
3
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
11. Dr A K Singh submitted that all dues were paid; therefore, there
was no question of imposing any penalties. He also submitted that
for the period between 2015 and 2024, the petitioner was illegally
deprived of her place on the railway platform. He therefore
wondered how, during this period, any dues would be payable to
the railway authorities.
12. Dr A K Singh, on instructions, and strictly under protest or without
prejudice, submitted that the alleged dues reflected in the
communication dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure-24), amounting to Rs.
1,35,359/-, would be paid by the petitioner, because the petitioner
is finding it extremely difficult to sustain herself and provide a
livelihood for her family. He, however, submitted that liberty may
be granted to the petitioner to represent to the respondents for the
refund of this amount or at least a substantial portion of this
amount because, according to the petitioner, this amount is not
due and payable.
13. Dr A K Singh submitted that since no dues were payable, penalties
should not have been imposed upon the petitioner for the alleged
non-payment of such dues. He also submitted that the 2010 Policy
specifically allows inclusion of her daughter’s name when renewing
the license. He submitted that an appropriate direction in this
regard is also liable to be issued to the respondents.
14. Mr Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I., submitted that the impugned
termination letter dated 11.06.2025 was strictly in accordance with
Article 15 of the Master License Agreement. He pointed out that
there was full compliance with the principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as on three separate occasions the petitioner was
counselled to amend/set right the deficiencies pointed out. Despite
assurances, there was no improvement in the petitioner’s services.
4
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
He submitted that this is validated by the inspection reports
submitted from time to time.
15. Mr Prashant Pallav submitted that in terms of the Master License
Agreement, fines were imposed in a phased manner, i.e., Rs. 500/-
in the first instance, Rs. 1000/- in the next, Rs. 5,000/- in the third
and Rs. 50,000/- in the fourth. However, the petitioner did not
bother to even pay the fines or improve her services. Mr Prashant
Pallav submitted that the impugned termination letter was issued
only in the above circumstances. He reiterated that there was
neither any failure of natural justice nor any breach of the
contractual provisions.
16. Mr Prashant Pallav referred to the detailed averments in the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and also
pointed out paragraph No. 106 of the petitioner’s rejoinder, in
which these detailed averments were not countered. He submitted
that a vague allegation about the termination letter being whimsical
and arbitrary cannot be treated as a denial or in any event,
constitutes an evasive denial which is not a denial in terms of the
law. In any event, he submitted that there were documents/records
regarding the counselling, warnings and fines imposed upon the
petitioner.
17. For all the above reasons, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I.,
submitted that this petition may be dismissed. He also submitted
that there is no policy for including her daughter’s name while the
original licensee is still living.
18. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
19. As noted earlier, this is not a case of some fresh license issued to
the petitioner, who is admittedly a widow of the earlier licensee, to
operate a food stall at the railway platform. Her husband operated
5
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
this food stall under a license from the respondents from 1994 to
2000. Upon his demise, the license was transferred/granted to the
petitioner herein.
20. The record also shows that the petitioner has operated the stall
from 2000 to 2015 without any interruption and based upon the
periodic renewals in terms of the railways’ catering policy as
applicable from time to time.
21. In 2015, the petitioner was removed from the platform. From the
documents regarding such renewal, we find that the same was
quite unfair and not in accordance with the legal procedures. At
least the documents on record do not show why the petitioner was
summarily removed from the platform. There is no record of any
compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play before
such removal.
22. The petitioner was forced to file at least two writ petitions before
this Court seeking redress for her removal from the platform
despite having a valid license to operate the food stall. The
petitioner pointed out that relief was granted in similar
circumstances to those of certain others. These writ petitions were
disposed of mainly by directing the respondents to consider the
petitioner’s representation. On the first occasion, the representation
was rejected. However, after the rejection was set aside by this
Court, the railways, by their communication dated 14.10.2024,
renewed the petitioner’s license and permitted her to operate a
food stall on the railway platform.
23. Even before a year had expired, however, the impugned
termination letter dated 11.06.2025 terminated this renewed
license. The impugned communication refers to four reasons:
a. Continuous failure to provide satisfactory services;
6
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
b. Non-adherence to the required performance level;
c. Non-submission of Railway dues for the previous
contract period; and
d. Failure to pay the imposed penalties despite a series of
reminders.
24. As for the first two reasons, at least in the facts of this case, we
believe they are quite vague. Although there is reference to
counselling and warnings, the petitioner, at least in the facts of this
case, was entitled to be informed why, according to the
respondents, the services she provided were unsatisfactory or not
in accordance with the licence conditions. Similarly, the petitioner
was entitled to be apprised of the so-called performance levels
expected of her, and only if there was material showing that she
failed to achieve such levels despite being apprised of them could
any action have been considered. There is no such clear material
on record.
25. Besides, the railways had to appreciate that the petitioner was a
widow, who, along with her daughter, was struggling to make a
living. Therefore, it is merely alleged that the services provided by
her were unsatisfactory or that she had not attained the prescribed
performance level, reasons which cannot be very easily accepted.
We feel that, based upon such vague reasons, the railway
authorities, who were expected to be quite sensitive and conscious
of the social and ground realities, could not have taken the harsh
action of terminating the renewed license within hardly a year of its
renewal, for which the petitioner, a widow over 70 years, was
forced to litigate for almost a decade.
26. This is more so because the petitioner, a widow, was arbitrarily
removed from the railway platform in 2015, and after a struggle
7
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
involving the institution of no less than two writ petitions and
several representations, she could secure a renewal on 14.10.2024
through the intervention of the Court. This, almost heroic success,
which the widow petitioner achieved through a long legal battle,
should not have been eclipsed in a summary manner within hardly
a year from the date of the renewal.
27. The other two reasons set out in the impugned communication
terminating the petitioner’s license concern the non-submission of
railway dues and failure to pay the imposed penalties. The
petitioner consistently pointed out that, from 2015 onwards, she
was not even at the railway platform, due to her arbitrary ouster.
She contended that for the period between 14.10.2024 and
11.06.2025, there was no question of the dues amounting to Rs.
1,35,359/- as demanded in the communication dated 20.05.2025.
She contended that, for the period when she was ousted, it would
be unfair to require her to pay any water charges or electricity
charges of Rs. 8,570.40/- and Rs. 58,563/-, respectively. She
pointed out that she was regularly paying the license fees. Even the
document dated 20.05.2025 acknowledges that the petitioner’s
license fees were nil.
28. The impugned termination communication dated 11.06.2025 does
not even take into consideration the petitioner’s defences. Instead,
based on alleged non-payment of dues for the “previous contract
period” and failure to pay the imposed penalties, the impugned
communication was issued.
29. We agree with Dr A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner,
that the entire approach of the respondents in this matter is not
quite consistent with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of S.C.R. Caterers (supra).
8
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
30. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to
Articles 14, 38 & 39 of the Constitution, in the precise context of
the railway circular and the railways’ policies for grant and renewal
of licenses to petty businesses on the railway platforms. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, being entrusted with the task of being the
counter-majoritarian institution, is duty-bound to ensure that the
rights of the downtrodden minorities and the members of the
weaker sections of society are not trampled upon. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court noted that the policy of not renewing the licenses of
those persons who are completely dependent on self-earning from
the small units and making them participate in public competition is
absolutely unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. The chances of such
persons being deprived of their right to livelihood is also an
important factor which has to be taken into consideration by the
Court to interpret the policy framed by the railways. A careless
attitude as far as the inaction on the part of the State in tackling
the problem of rising unemployment is appalling. The situation is
made worse by handing over of public functions to private
entrepreneurs, which then exploit the policies of the government
against the poor and downtrodden people of the country. If the
railways, under the guise of the policy, are permitted to deny
renewal of licenses in favour of the licensees, it would amount to
deprivation of their right to freedom of occupation guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as well as the right to
livelihood, which action of the railways, would be dramatically
opposed to their constitutional duty towards social justice as well as
uplifting the weaker sections of the society and unemployed youth
of this country.
9
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above decision, noted that the
evolving concept of social justice has to be kept in view and the
licensees must be allowed to continue their petty businesses,
especially in the absence of the employment potentiality in the
country on account of non-governance and non-implementation of
the constitutional philosophy of any egalitarian society, which
provide the opportunity to all individuals to lead life of dignity. The
Court noted that the right to life with dignity has been interpreted
as part of the right to life in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin vs
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Ors., reported in
(1981) 1 SCC 608.
32. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of the
Catering Policy, 2010, are applicable to the concerned respondents.
The action of the railways in not granting renewals of the licenses
to the members of the respondent association is arbitrary,
unreasonable, unfair, and discriminatory, and cannot be allowed to
stand in law. Accordingly, directions were given for renewal,
subject to the licenses declaring, on affidavit, that they do not have
a license for more than one shop or kiosk in their name or a
benami license at the railway stations, and that they would be
ready and willing to pay the periodical reasonable increase in the
license fee.
33. In this case, no doubt, the railways, pursuant to the orders of this
Court, did renew the petitioner’s license on 14.10.2024. However,
as noted earlier, this renewal was short-lived, and, for reasons we
do not comprehend, given the provisions of the master agreement,
the railway’s own policies, and the observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.C.R. Caterers (supra), the
10
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
license was terminated. Such termination, therefore, warrant
interfere and is hereby quashed and set aside.
34. The renewal dated 14.10.2024 entitled the petitioner to operate the
food stall for a period of three years. Consequently, upon setting
aside the impugned termination, the licence would stand restored
on the same terms and conditions. As for further renewals, that is
not an issue before us in this petition. We hope and expect that the
issue of further renewals would be considered in accordance with
the law, applicable policies, and the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on this issue.
35. However, the restoration shall be subject to the petitioner filing on
affidavit a declaration that she does not have a license of more
than one stall or kiosk in her name or that the benefit of this
particular license will be personal to her and that she will not allow
any other person to operate this stall benami or by way of sub-
licensee, etc. The Railway authorities must, however, appreciate
that the petitioner is about 76 years old. She is, therefore, naturally
assisted by her daughter and family members. That cannot be
regarded as some benami or transfer. Such an affidavit must be
filed within two weeks from today.
36. The statement made on behalf of the petitioner that she will pay
without prejudice a sum of Rs. 1,35,359/- in terms of the demand
dated 20.05.2025 is accepted.
37. Dr A K Singh, based on instructions from the petitioner’s daughter,
who is present in the Court, submits that such amount would be
paid without prejudice and under protest within two weeks from
today.
38. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a representation before the
concerned respondents for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,35,359/-,
11
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
which the petitioner is now paying under protest and without
prejudice. In the same representation, the petitioner may also
renew her prayer for inclusion of her daughter’s name in the
license. The petitioner is also entitled to raise any further grievance
regards reduction of area if any etc. We direct the respondent to
consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation in
accordance with the law and the relevant policies, on its own
merits, as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within three
months of receipt.
39. Upon the petitioner paying the aforesaid amount under protest
without prejudice and filing an affidavit as directed above within
two weeks from today, the concerned respondents must
immediately restore the petitioner to the railway platform so that
she can commence her petty business under the license dated
14.10.2024. No other conditions, other than those in the licence
dated 14.10 2024, should be imposed upon the petitioner at the
stage of restoration.
40. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above
terms without any order for costs.
41. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 11 of 2026:
42. This contempt petition alleges that, despite the status quo order,
the railways proceeded to float a fresh tender.
43. The respondents’ case is that the tender was published before the
interim order could be communicated to them. The records show
that ultimately, the tender was not pursued.
44. We have already allowed the writ petition and directed the railways
to restore the petitioner, a 76-year-old widow who is assisted by
her daughter in carrying on her petty business at the railway
12
2026:JHHC:12268-DB
station, to the railway platform so that she can carry out her petty
business at the railway station.
45. Cumulatively considering the above aspects, there is no case to
proceed with this contempt petition.
46. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of, and the notice
issued therein is dropped.
(M. S. SONAK, C.J.)
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J.)
27.04.2026
Vikas/Vedanti
13
